Natural justice and procedural fairness in Australian context
Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness in Australia
Overview
Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness are fundamental principles in Australian administrative law designed to ensure that decisions made by public authorities are fair, transparent, and reasonable. These principles apply whenever a decision affects the rights, interests, or legitimate expectations of an individual.
Natural Justice traditionally consists of two key rules:
The hearing rule (audi alteram partem) – the right to a fair hearing.
The bias rule (nemo judex in causa sua) – the decision-maker must be impartial.
Procedural Fairness is a broader concept, often used interchangeably with natural justice, encompassing fair decision-making procedures appropriate to the context.
Key Principles
A person affected by a decision should be given notice of the case against them.
The person should have an opportunity to present their case.
Decision-makers must be unbiased.
Decisions must be based on relevant evidence.
The process must be fair and appropriate to the circumstances.
Case Law Examples
1. Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Facts: The Minister for Immigration refused a visa to Kioa and his family without giving them an opportunity to respond to adverse information received from third parties.
Decision: The High Court held that procedural fairness required the Minister to disclose adverse information and give the applicants a chance to respond.
Principle: This landmark case extended natural justice to administrative decisions affecting rights or interests, emphasizing the duty to provide a fair hearing and disclosure of relevant information.
2. Ridge v Baldwin (1964) 113 CLR 265
Although this is a UK case, it heavily influenced Australian law.
Facts: A police officer was dismissed without a hearing.
Decision: The High Court (following the UK precedent) affirmed the necessity of a fair hearing before dismissal.
Principle: The case established the fundamental right to be heard before adverse decisions are made, a principle adopted in Australia.
3. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Facts: The Minister rejected refugee status without allowing the applicant to respond to adverse information.
Decision: The High Court held that the rules of procedural fairness apply, especially where credibility is questioned, requiring a hearing or opportunity to respond.
Principle: Procedural fairness is essential when assessing facts, especially credibility, in administrative decisions.
4. Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Facts: Parents of a deceased child were not given an opportunity to be heard before a coroner made findings that affected their interests.
Decision: The High Court ruled that procedural fairness applies to coronial inquests, requiring a hearing where findings adversely affect interests.
Principle: Procedural fairness applies beyond formal adjudicative settings to various administrative decisions affecting interests.
5. Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
Facts: A family dispute about child custody involved procedural fairness issues regarding the opportunity to present evidence.
Decision: The High Court held that procedural fairness requires giving parties a reasonable opportunity to put their case and respond to adverse material.
Principle: The scope of procedural fairness depends on context but fundamentally protects the right to be heard and to a fair process.
6. Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Facts: The issue was about alleged bias of a judge due to a conflict of interest.
Decision: The High Court held that even an appearance of bias is sufficient to disqualify a decision-maker.
Principle: The rule against bias protects not only actual bias but also the appearance of bias to maintain public confidence.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Issue | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Kioa v West (1985) | Right to be heard, disclosure | Procedural fairness requires disclosure of adverse info and hearing opportunity |
| Ridge v Baldwin (1964) | Right to fair hearing | Fundamental right to be heard before dismissal |
| Minister for Immigration v Wu Shan Liang (1996) | Procedural fairness in refugee decisions | Right to respond to adverse credibility findings |
| Annetts v McCann (1990) | Procedural fairness in coronial inquests | Fair hearing required when interests adversely affected |
| Johnson v Johnson (2000) | Opportunity to present case | Contextual application of procedural fairness |
| Ebner v Official Trustee (2000) | Bias and conflict of interest | Appearance of bias disqualifies decision-maker |
Conclusion
In Australia, natural justice and procedural fairness are fundamental to administrative law. They require public authorities to provide a fair hearing, act impartially, and make decisions transparently and reasonably. The High Court has firmly embedded these principles across various contexts, from immigration to coronial inquests, ensuring fairness in administrative processes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments